[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments

[Gervase Markham]

On 01/11/17 18:00, Dean Coclin wrote:
> A working group has to be approved by the Forum members. This is what
> would stop a WG from doing what you suggest.

Well, not necessarily. It depends how strongly the commitment to
transparency is among the particular members involved. But transparency
should not be optional for a standards-setting body. The current
transparency rules were the result of a long push to ensure transparency
of Forum operations several years ago, and I do not want to see that
rolled back.

> Also, there may be legitimate reasons to have a closed mailing list.
> I recall when we did code signing that we were discussing items that
> would be of interest to people that would want to hack the system.
> Hence an open list was not in the best interest of the group.

If the security of a system depends on aspects of its operation being
secret, then it's not secure.

Gerv